<p>Hello everyone :)
I was reading the threads for the classes of 2017 for MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Caltech and Columbia. I noticed something "weird". People that were rejected at either MIT, Harvard, Yale, Caltech or Columbia, often managed to get in either Stanford or Princeton and vice versa. Is it only a coincidence?</p>
<p>I think a better way to put it is those who get rejected from Stanford…often get into Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech…so, there is no rhyme or reason…</p>
<p>…and some of the academic superstars (very limited number) get into S, H, P, Y, and M…</p>
<p>…these students usually know who they are…they USUALLY don’t post on college confidential…</p>
<p>Remember there are supplemental questions also, that shows the fit to the adcoms.
They are always looking for students that fit their school profile.</p>
<p>Again, my personal opinion, but tracking admissions in our local schools, Caltech seems very academic (strong math/science track and ECs), so is MIT, Harvard tends to take the leaders (captains, valedectorians, perfect scorers). Yale and Columbia are kind of more all rounded so is Stanford and maybe Princeton (to some degree) Some may weigh legacy more than others. And yes, it also depends on the class they are building. Again just my observations…Also at least in CA, there seems to be more Stanford acceptances than Harvard… maybe local high schools have better visibility and yield are a factor. Stanford takes a lot of potential Div 1 athletes who are also at the top of academics (they dont have to be academic superstars but think 4.0 with not as many APs…). Some kids get recruited right from junior year of high school.</p>
<p>Yes, and the previous responder said , some - the superstars, international medal winners, incredibly talented artistically…combined with their top notch academics .are sought by all.</p>
<p>Yea, I do think some of the things admissions at Stanford look for are different than east coast peer schools.</p>
<p>That being said, many (perhaps most?) of the people at Stanford that I have met got into many comparable schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Cal, Caltech, Julliard, etc.</p>
<p>However, Stanford does draw about 40% of its student body from California. And a very large proportion of the student body (heard as high as 1/8th?) are student athletes (D1), some of whom probably wouldn’t be recruited at HYP due to the Ivy league rules.</p>
<p>The anecdotal consensus seems to be that Stanford places less emphasis on standardized test scores and other more objective factors, and focuses more on subjectivity. Of course, all top schools do this to some extent, but there seems to be slightly less of 2400 SAT 36 ACT 4.0 Valedictorians: less of applicants who are “perfect” on paper.</p>
<p>So merovingian, in your opinion, are the people you’re meeting at Stanford great fits for Stanford? What characterizes them (and you) as a fit for Stanford? </p>
<p>Just trying to get a feel for the type of people Stanford wants.</p>
<p>“Stanford places less emphasis on standardized test scores and other more objective factors”</p>
<p>I am not so sure about this.</p>
<p>There are different groups of admits at Stanford and each group is expected to have a different set of attributes.</p>
<p>The athletes are elite and are expected to bring home the gold in whatever sport they are in. Some of them will be admitted even if they barely meet the NCAA academic requirements (some, not all).</p>
<p>There will be first gens, internationals etc, who are expected to be good not have extremely high scores.</p>
<p>Most of the rest are expected to have extremely high scores. I know several kids in 2016 batch with perfect or near perfect scores. These are all academic admits who will perform very well anywhere and several of them were admitted to Harvard. They also keep the test score averages respectable for Stanford.</p>
<p>Have a look at this old thread:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/1310410-selection-process-harvard-vs-stanford.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/1310410-selection-process-harvard-vs-stanford.html</a></p>
<p>The stereotype is that Stanford tends to place more emphasis on “intangible” variables than HYP. Hence, its relatively lengthy supplement and obsession with gauging applicants’ “intellectual vitality.” Have a look at this video:</p>
<p>[Stanford–What</a> factors affect decision beyond academic measures - YouTube](<a href=“Stanford--What factors affect decision beyond academic measures - YouTube”>Stanford--What factors affect decision beyond academic measures - YouTube) </p>
<p>Stanford really cares about filling the class with genuinely nice, passionate people. I’ve heard this from admission officers themselves. It will likely turn down an accomplished student if it thinks that he/she is 1) mean and/or 2) not passionate about what he/she does inside and outside of the classroom. </p>
<p>Having said all of this, many of the people I’ve encountered here had very high quantifiable variables in high school (i.e., SAT/ACT, GPA), indicating that intangible qualities are simply tipping factors when all else is equal. There’s no substitute for having good numbers.</p>
<p>savethetrees wrote: So merovingian, in your opinion, are the people you’re meeting at Stanford great fits for Stanford?</p>
<p>That is an interesting question since in some ways you can argue what really defines Stanford (or any college) is mainly the students.</p>
<p>
Each college has a different admissions group, which weights factors differently, and in some cases considers different factors. For example, if you compare the acceptance rate between male and female apps with similar stats among the Parchment data, the acceptance rate for males and females is nearly identical and Stanford, HYP, and most other selective colleges. However, at MIT it’s not even close. In some stat groups, the MIT female acceptance rate is several times greater than the male rate. The degree of increase was similar to URM vs non-URM. This fits with MIT being one of 2 tech schools I am aware of with a well balanced gender ratio. Caltech shows a similar pattern, but to a lesser degree.</p>
<p>Sometimes the CDS lists very different admissions criteria at different selective colleges. For example, Brown’s criteria rankings listed in the CDS mark level of interest, personal/character qualities, and talent as most important… more important than the stat criteria. In contrast, Stanford and HY (not P) say they do not even consider level of interest. The lower weight on stats at Brown fits with Brown having a far lower 25th/75th SAT than one would expect based on the acceptance rate.</p>
<p>The biased sample of posters on this forum fit with the comments above about Stanford placing less emphasis on test scores. Among posters in the RD thread (an obviously biased sample), the rejected posters had slightly higher stats as a whole than the accepted posters, particularly for class rank. This pattern does not appear in RD threads for any other selective colleges I am aware of. The rejected high stat posters generally were accepted at other highly selective colleges (especially Yale). </p>
<p>In spite of all of these differences, there is still a notable correlation between acceptances/rejections at different selective colleges. A student accepted at Stanford has a much greater chance of being accepted at HYPM than the overall app group and vice versa.</p>
<p>From what I gather as an international applicant, I must be a topper to get in at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford? 
‘Straight A’ record is a bare minimum, LOL? </p>
<p>Atleast from these, Harvard seems to love research papers: they’ve used SlideRoom for research papers and all.</p>
<p>Am I right in my understanding?</p>